Insectes Sociaux

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 145–152 | Cite as

The spatial distribution of nests of the harvester ant Messor barbarus in dryland cereals

Research Article

Abstract

The harvester ant Messor barbarus can be responsible for substantial losses of weed seeds in arable fields in NE Spain. The spatial distribution of nests can have consequences for biological weed control, because foraging intensities decline with distance from the nest. The probability that seeds will escape harvesting will be lower if nests occur regularly distributed. We here investigated ‘large’-scale variability (up to 150 m), caused by habitat heterogeneity, and ‘small’-scale spatial variability (up to 12 m), caused by interactions between colonies, in nest distribution in a 50 × 150 m area in a cereal field in NE Spain, in 2009 and 2010. Large-scale variability was present in the data, but could not be explained by elevation, distance to the nearest field edge, or interpreted as simple trends across the area. Small-scale interactions could successfully be described by a multi-type/hard core Strauss process model, indicating territoriality among nests. Exclusion and interaction zones were identified, with radii that were smaller for small than for large colonies, and smaller for 2009 than for 2010. There was close resemblance between the observed and fitted spatial structure up to a radius of 3–4 m. Large-scale spatial variability, but not small-scale interactions, may be responsible for the existence of areas with few or no nests, where weed seeds have a higher probability of escaping the ants and entering the seed bank. Identifying and understanding the factors that influence the large-scale trends is, therefore, essential for optimizing weed control.

Keywords

Seed predation Weed control Spatial point process Gibbs models Spatial analysis Small-scale interactions Large-scale trends North-eastern Spain 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Aritz Royo-Esnal, Nuria Moix, and Sergi Royan for field assistance, and Silvia Espinal Utgés of SIG i Teledetecció, ETSEA, Universidad the Lleida for extensive help with georeferencing. We also thank Xavier Llobet for allowing us to use his cereal fields and for his patience and hospitality. This research was funded by the University of Lleida (PhD grant to V. Atanackovic) and the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain (projects AGL 2007-60828 and RYC-2006-000697 to P.R. Westerman and AGL2010-22084-C02-01 to J. Torra).

References

  1. Azcárate F.M., Kovacs E. and Peco B. 2007. Microclimatic conditions regulate surface activity in harvester ants Messor barbarus. J. Insect Behav. 20: 315–329.Google Scholar
  2. Azcárate F.M. and Peco B. 2003. Spatial patterns of seed predation by harvester ants (Messor Forel) in Mediterranean grassland and scrubland. Insect. Soc. 50: 120–126.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley A. and Turner R. 2006. Modelling spatial point patterns in R. In: Case Studies in Spatial Point Pattern Modelling, No. 185 in Lecture Notes in Statistics (Baddeley A., Gregori P., Mateu J., Stoica R. and Stoyan D., Eds). Springer, New York, pp 23–74.Google Scholar
  4. Baraibar B., Torra J. and Westerman P.R. 2011. Harvester ant (Messor barbarus (L.)) density as related to soil properties, topography and management in semi-arid cereals. Appl. Soil Ecol. 5: 60–65.Google Scholar
  5. Baraibar B., Westerman P.R., Carrión E. and Recasens J. 2009. Effects of tillage and irrigation in cereal fields on weed seed removal by seed predators. J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 380–387.Google Scholar
  6. Baroni Urbani C. 1968. Monogyny in ant societies. Zool. Anz. 181: 269–277.Google Scholar
  7. Boulton A.M., Davies K.F. and Ward P.S. 2005. Species richness, abundance, and composition of ground-dwelling ants in northern California grasslands: role of plants, soil, and grazing. Environ. Entomol. 34: 96–104.Google Scholar
  8. Crist T.O. and Williams J.A. 1999. Simulation of topographic and daily variation in colony activity of Pogonomyrmex occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) using a soil temperature model. Environ. Entomol. 28: 659–668.Google Scholar
  9. Díaz M. 1991. Spatial patterns of granivorous ant nest abundance and nest site selection in agricultural landscapes of Central Spain. Insect. Soc. 38: 351–363.Google Scholar
  10. Díaz M. 1992. Spatial and temporal patterns of granivorous ant seed predation in patchy cereal crop areas of central Spain. Oecologia 91: 561–568.Google Scholar
  11. Enzmann B.L. and Nonacs P. 2010. Digging beneath the surface: incipient nest characteristics across three species of harvester ant that differ in colony founding strategy. Insect. Soc. 57: 115–123.Google Scholar
  12. Folgarait P.J., Gorosito N., Pizzio R., Rossi J.P. and Fernández J. 2007. Camponotus punctulatus ant’s demography: a temporal study across land-use types and spatial scales. Insect. Soc. 54: 42–52.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon D.M. 1992. Nest relocation in harvester ants. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 85: 44–47.Google Scholar
  14. Gordon D.M. and Kulig A.W. 1996. Founding, foraging, and fighting: colony size and the spatial distribution of harvester ant nests. Ecology 77: 2393–2409.Google Scholar
  15. Grasso D.A., Sledge M.F., Le Moli F., Mori A. and Turilazzi S. 2005. Nest-area marking with faeces: a chemical signature that allows colony-level recognition in seed harvesting ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insect. Soc. 52: 36–44.Google Scholar
  16. Grohmann C., Oldeland J., Stoyan D. and Linsenmair K.E. 2010. Multi-scale pattern analysis of a mound-building termite species. Insect. Soc. 57: 477–486.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson R.A. 2001. Biogeography and community structure of North American seed-harvester ants. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46: 1–29.Google Scholar
  18. Kilpeläinen J., Punttila P., Finér L., Niemla P., Domisch T, Jurgensen M.F., Neuvonen S., Ohashi M., Risch A.C. and Sundström L. 2008. Distribution of ant species and mounds (Formica) in different-aged managed spruce stands in eastern Finland. J. Appl. Entomol. 132: 315–325.Google Scholar
  19. Kirkpatrick M. 1984. Demographic models based on size, not age, for organisms with indeterminate growth. Ecology 65: 1874–1884.Google Scholar
  20. Knaden M. and Wehner R. 2003. Nest defense and conspecific enemy recognition in the desert ant Cataglyphis fortis. J. Insect Behav. 16: 717–730.Google Scholar
  21. Korb J. and Linsenmair K.E. 2001. The causes of spatial patterning of mounds of a fungus-cultivating termite: results from nearest-neighbour analysis and ecological studies. Oecologia 127: 324–333.Google Scholar
  22. Lan G., Getzin S., Wiegand T., Hu Y., Xie G., Zhu H and Cao M. 2012. Spatial distribution and interspecific associations of tree species in a tropical seasonal rain forest of China. PLOS ONE 7: e46074.Google Scholar
  23. Levings S.C. and Traniello J.F.A. 1981. Territoriality, nest dispersion, and community structure in ants. Psyche 88: 265–319.Google Scholar
  24. Mull J.F. and Macmahon J.A. 1997. Spatial variation in rates of seed removal by harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex occidentalis) in a shrub-steppe ecosystem. Am. Midl. Nat. 138: 1–13.Google Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Austria. www.R-project.org. Accessed 18 November 2013.
  26. Ripley B.D. 1977. Modelling spatial patterns. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 39: 172–212.Google Scholar
  27. Ryti R.T. and Case T.J. 1988. The regeneration niche of desert ants: effects of established colonies. Oecologia 75: 303–306.Google Scholar
  28. Sauer J.R. and Slade N.A. 1987. Uinta ground squirrel demography: is body mass a better categorical variable than age? Ecology 68: 642–650.Google Scholar
  29. Schooley R.L. and Wiens J.A. 2003. Spatial patterns, density dependence, and demography in the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex rugosus, in semi-arid grasslands. J. Arid Environ. 53: 183–196.Google Scholar
  30. Serrano J.M., Acosta F.J. and Lopez F. 1993. Belowground space occupation and partitioning in an ant community during succession. Eur. J. Entomol. 90: 149–158.Google Scholar
  31. Wang C., Strazanac J.S. and Butler L. 2001. Association between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and habitat characteristics in oak-dominated mixed forests. Environ. Entomol. 30: 842–848.Google Scholar
  32. Westerman P.R., Atanackovic V., Royo-Esnal A. and Torra J. 2012. Differential weed seed removal in dryland cereals. Arthropod-Plant Interact. 6: 591–599.Google Scholar
  33. Wiegand T. and Moloney K.A. 2004. Rings, circles, and null-models for point pattern analysis in ecology. Oikos 104: 209–229.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Biologia Vegetal, Facultat de BiologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Group Crop Health, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesUniversity of RostockRostockGermany
  3. 3.Department HBJUniversity of Lleida, ETSEALleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations